(Tarver, D-Chicago; Sims, D-Chicago) provides that "seller" does not include a beneficiary who has both (1) never occupied the residential real property and (2) never had management responsibility for the residential real property. Passed both chambers.
Interlocutory appeal in a foreclosure matter involving an order entered by the trial court that imposed a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff over a share of a mortgage note. Defendant argued that the appellate court had jurisdiction under SCR 307. The appellate court dismissed, finding that it lacked jurisdiction explaining that it would not upset the well-settled rule regarding foreclosure orders and that an interlocutory appeal was not appropriate where any inequity in the temporary order could be addressed by the trial court before issuing a final order. (C.A. WALKER and TAILOR, concurring)
Appeal of a mortgage foreclosure action involving a deceased mortgagor. The administrator of the estate and one of the heirs filed an affirmative defense alleging that the mortgagor was mentally incompetent to execute the mortgage documents and the circuit court struck the affirmative defense. Defendants appealed from that order as well as the order of foreclosure and sale and the order approving the judicial sale of the property. The appellate court reversed the order striking the affirmative defense, vacated the orders of foreclosure and sale and approving the judicial sale of the property by finding that the trial court erred in striking the properly pleaded affirmative defense and that this denied the defendants a fair opportunity to properly frame their defense of incapacity. (MITCHELL and LYLE, concurring)
Defendant appealed from a circuit court order confirming the sale of her residence pursuant to a foreclosure. Defendant argued on appeal that the circuit court committed several errors relating to the sale, including that the circuit court erred in confirming the sale of the property despite learning that defendant did not receive a loss mitigation denial letter on her loan modification application as is required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, that defendant’s loan modification application was not properly processed by the plaintiff, and where the evidence showed that plaintiff neglected numerous attempts by plaintiff to modify her loan and to end her delinquency. The appellate court affirmed, finding that defendant did not timely raise her arguments and that they were not supported by the record. (C.A. WALKER and TAILOR, concurring)
(Yednock, D-Ottawa) requires that the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation work with the Illinois Real Estate Lawyers Association and other interested parties to develop a standardized residential real estate contract. Scheduled for hearing this Wednesday in House Judiciary Committee.
(Villa, West Chicago) Amends the Code of Civil Procedure. Provides that every individual is entitled to an estate of homestead to the extent in value of $30,000 of his or her interest in a farm or lot of land and buildings thereon, a condominium, or personal property, owned or rightly possessed by lease or otherwise and occupied by him or her as a residence, or in a cooperative that owns property that the individual uses as a residence, or $60,000 if the homestead is owned by 2 or more individuals. Scheduled for hearing Tuesday in Senate Judiciary Committee.
(Morrison, D-Deerfield) amends the Administrative Review Article of the Code of Civil Procedure. Provides that for an action to review a decision of an administrative agency with final decision-making authority over designated historic properties or areas or a decision of an administrative agency with final decision-making authority over exterior design review of buildings or structures, "parties of record" means only the administrative agency and applicants before the administrative agency, and "parties of record" does not mean persons who appeared before and submitted oral testimony or written statements to the zoning board of appeals with respect to the decision appealed. Requires that within two days of filing the action, the plaintiff shall send a notice of filing of the action by certified mail to each other person who appeared before and submitted oral testimony or a written statement to the administrative agency with respect to the appealed decision. Requires that the notice shall state the caption of the action, the court in which the action was filed, and the names of the plaintiff in the action and the applicant to the administrative agency. Requires that the notice shall inform the person of his or her right to intervene. Provides that each person who appeared before and submitted oral testimony or a written statement to the administrative agency with respect to the appealed decision shall have a right to intervene as a defendant in the action upon application made to the court within 30 days of the mailing of the notice. Scheduled for hearing next Tuesday in Senate Judiciary Committee.
(Moeller, D-Elgin) amends the Eviction Article of the Code of Civil Procedure. It requires the court to appoint an attorney for an indigent tenant in an eviction action. Provides that the Supreme Court Access to Justice Commission is responsible for the implementation of such appointments, and the State shall pay the costs of legal services provided by an appointed attorney. Requires the Supreme Court Access to Justice Commission to enter into contracts with attorneys and agencies for the provision of legal services. Requires the Supreme Court Access to Justice Commission to submit to the General Assembly a plan to fully implement the indigent tenant representation requirements within 12 months of the effective date of the amendatory Act. Just introduced.
Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state viable claim, plaintiffs’ action, alleging that defendant-Village violated their Constitutional rights by either granting plaintiffs permits to build their homes in designated flood plain without ensuring that their basements would remain dry or by failing to construct dikes to keep water away from their basements. While Constitution establishes right to be free of governmental interference, it does not compel governmental intervention to assist persons from their own bad decision to build house in flood plain. Moreover, even if Village violated both local ordinance and federal regulation when issuing permits, Constitution does not entitle private parties to accurate enforcement of local, state or federal law, especially where no one forced plaintiffs to build their houses on flood plain. Also, Takings Clause did not apply, where Village did not take anyone’s property, either by physical invasion or by regulation.
Appeal arising out of a sale of property due to delinquent property taxes. Respondent argued on appeal that the circuit court erred when it granted petitioner’s motion for issuance of a tax deed, arguing that he had paid the full redemption amount four days before the deed was issued. The appellate court affirmed, finding that petitioner did not redeem the property by the redemption deadline under the Property Tax Code. (McLAREN and HUTCHINSON, concurring)